AMD Athlon X4 840

The AMD Athlon X4 840 is a 4-core, 4-thread desktop processor built on the Steamroller architecture (Kaveri codename) using a 28 nm process from GlobalFoundries. It operates at a base clock of 3.10 GHz with a boost clock of 3.80 GHz, fits the AMD Socket FM2+, and carries a 65 W TDP. The data places this chip at the 26th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 975, indicating a modest entry-level position in the current performance landscape.

Benchmark Performance

The benchmark results for the Athlon X4 840 show a consistent pattern across modern rendering workloads. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the processor scores 285 points. Moving to Cinebench R20 multi-core, the score rises to 1189 points, and in Cinebench R23 multi-core it reaches 2833 points. These numbers place the chip firmly in the lower tier of desktop processors, but the scaling between versions follows the expected progression of the test suite rather than indicating any anomaly.

The average benchmark score of 975 puts this chip in a tightly contested cluster. The nearest rival, the AMD A10-7870K, matches it exactly with a deltaPct of 0. The Intel Core i3-4130 is virtually identical, scoring 974 with a deltaPct of 0.1 — meaning the Athlon X4 840 is 0.1% ahead. Two other rivals, the Intel Core i5-5257U and the Intel Xeon W5590, both score 977, giving a deltaPct of -0.2, which means the Athlon X4 840 trails them by 0.2%.

These deltas are negligible in real-world terms. A 0.1% or 0.2% difference translates to less than a single point in most workloads, so the Athlon X4 840 sits in a four-way statistical tie with its immediate competitors. The data shows no single rival in this group holds a meaningful performance advantage. The chip's 26th percentile ranking reinforces the picture: this is a processor that sits below the median, suitable for basic tasks but not competitive with modern mid-range or high-end parts.

Power and Thermals

The Athlon X4 840 carries a TDP of 65 W, which is a moderate figure for a quad-core desktop processor. This TDP class implies that a capable air cooler is sufficient for normal operation — no exotic liquid cooling or oversized heatsink is required to maintain stable performance. The 65 W envelope also suggests the chip can run in compact desktop systems with limited cooling headroom, provided the chassis has adequate airflow.

The 28 nm manufacturing process and the 2,411 million transistor count on a 245 mm² die contribute to this power profile. The Steamroller architecture, while not the most efficient design of its era, stays within a reasonable thermal budget at these clock speeds. The base clock of 3.10 GHz and boost clock of 3.80 GHz are modest enough that thermal throttling should not be a frequent issue under typical loads, though sustained multi-core rendering will push the chip toward its thermal limits.

The lack of integrated graphics means the processor relies on a discrete GPU, which shifts some thermal burden to the graphics card but keeps the CPU socket area relatively cool. For a system builder, the 65 W TDP simplifies cooler selection and power supply requirements, making this chip easy to integrate into existing FM2+ boards without upgrading the cooling solution.

Single-Thread vs Multi-Thread Behavior

The split between single-thread and multi-thread scores reveals a processor that is balanced but limited in both domains. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Athlon X4 840 scores 168 points, while the multi-core score is 1189 points. The ratio between these — roughly 7:1 — is typical for a 4-core, 4-thread part with no simultaneous multithreading, since each core contributes equally to the multi-core result.

In Cinebench R23, the single-core score is 400 points and the multi-core score is 2833 points, again showing a similar multiplier. This linear scaling indicates that the processor does not benefit from any turbo enhancements that favor single-core bursts beyond the stated 3.80 GHz boost clock. The single-thread performance is adequate for everyday tasks like web browsing, document editing, and light productivity, but it will feel sluggish in applications that rely heavily on a single core, such as older games or some spreadsheet operations.

For multi-threaded workloads, the 4-core configuration handles parallel tasks like video encoding or batch photo processing, but the absolute scores are low compared to modern CPUs. The data suggests that while the chip can engage all four cores effectively, each core's individual throughput is limited by the Steamroller architecture's age. Users will notice that multi-threaded tasks complete, but slowly relative to any recent processor.

How It Compares

AMD A10-7870K: This rival matches the Athlon X4 840 exactly, with both scoring 975 in the average benchmark. The deltaPct of 0 means there is no measurable performance difference between the two in aggregate. The A10-7870K likely includes integrated graphics, but the data here shows identical CPU compute performance, making the Athlon X4 840 a comparable choice for users who already have a discrete GPU.

Intel Core i3-4130: The i3-4130 scores 974, placing it 0.1% behind the Athlon X4 840. This is a negligible margin — effectively a tie. The i3-4130 is a dual-core part with Hyper-Threading, so its thread count matches the Athlon's four threads, but the distribution differs. Benchmark results indicate that for most applications, users would not perceive any difference between these two processors.

Intel Core i5-5257U: This mobile chip scores 977, which is 0.2% ahead of the Athlon X4 840. The i5-5257U is a low-power part, but the data shows it edges out the Athlon in aggregate performance. The delta is small enough that real-world differences will depend on specific workloads, but the comparison highlights that the Athlon X4 840 is not far off from a mobile dual-core with turbo boost.

Intel Xeon W5590: The W5590 also scores 977, putting it 0.2% ahead of the Athlon X4 840. This is an older workstation-class processor, yet the benchmark data shows it still holds a slight edge. The delta is minimal, but it indicates that the Athlon X4 840's performance level is comparable to high-end parts from several generations ago.

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score of the AMD Athlon X4 840?

A: The average benchmark score is 975, which places the processor at the 26th percentile among all CPUs.

Q: How does the Athlon X4 840 compare to the Intel Core i3-4130?

A: The Athlon X4 840 scores 975, while the i3-4130 scores 974, giving the Athlon a 0.1% advantage in the average benchmark.

Q: What is the TDP of this processor and what cooling does it require?

A: The TDP is 65 W, which implies that a capable air cooler is sufficient for normal operation without special cooling equipment.

Q: Does the Athlon X4 840 have integrated graphics?

A: No, the integrated graphics field is null, so this processor requires a discrete GPU for video output.

Q: What are the single-core and multi-core scores in Cinebench R23?

A: The single-core score is 400 points, and the multi-core score is 2833 points.

Q: Is the processor's multiplier unlocked?

A: Yes, the multiplier is unlocked, which allows for overclocking on supported FM2+ motherboards.

Who Should Consider It

The AMD Athlon X4 840 is suited for users building a basic desktop system on the FM2+ platform who already own a discrete graphics card. The 4-core, 4-thread configuration handles everyday productivity tasks like office suites, web browsing, and media playback without issue, though benchmark results indicate it will not excel in demanding applications.

For gaming, the processor's single-thread score of 400 in Cinebench R23 suggests it can run older or less CPU-intensive titles, but modern games that rely on strong single-core performance will likely bottleneck the system. The multi-core score of 2833 in Cinebench R23 indicates that light video editing or streaming is possible, but render times will be long compared to contemporary processors.

Users who prioritize a low-power, easy-to-cool system will find the 65 W TDP appealing, and the unlocked multiplier offers some headroom for enthusiasts willing to push the chip beyond its stock 3.80 GHz boost clock. However, the 26th percentile ranking means this is not a processor for anyone seeking competitive performance in 2024. It is best viewed as a functional, low-cost option for secondary machines, home servers, or retro builds where the FM2+ socket is already available.

The data does not support this chip for heavy multi-threaded workloads like 3D rendering or software compilation, where its scores lag far behind modern alternatives. Office work and general browsing, by contrast, fall well within its capabilities, and the negligible performance difference from rivals like the Intel Core i3-4130 means users will not sacrifice much by choosing this part in that context.